Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAT: Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits(Gift from GOP)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 05:54 AM
Original message
LAT: Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits(Gift from GOP)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-preempt19feb19,0,7920968.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

Near sunrise on a summer morning in 2001, Patrick Parker of Childress, Texas, swerved to avoid a deer and rolled his pickup truck.

The roof of the Ford F-250 crumpled, and Parker didn't stand a chance. His neck broke and, at 37, he was paralyzed from the chest down. He sued, and Ford Motor Co. settled for an undisclosed amount.

"You can imagine what happens when you're belted in and the roof comes down even with the door," Parker said. "Your options are death or quadriplegia."

Parker's case and hundreds like it are behind a beefed-up roof safety standard proposed in August by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But safety regulators tucked into the proposed rule something vehicle makers have long desired: protection from future roof-crush lawsuits like the one Parker filed.

The surprise move seeking legal protection for automakers is one in a series of recent steps by federal agencies to shield leading industries from state regulation and civil lawsuits on the grounds that they conflict with federal authority.

State's Rights my butt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. How can a federal RULE supersede state LAW? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. guess what--Andy card says he can't talk about it "deliberative process."


... Rosen, the Transportation Department's general counsel, said this was not the first time the highway safety agency had tried to override state liability laws.

During the 1990s, the agency joined automakers in arguing that they shouldn't be sued for not installing air bags at a time when the agency allowed either air bags or automatic seat belts. In 2000, the Supreme Court agreed that such suits were preempted but said that compliance with a standard ordinarily "does not immunize a manufacturer."

Card, the White House chief of staff, and Glassman, the agency's chief counsel, declined to discuss how the roof-crush lawsuit preemption originated. Rosen said he did not want "to get into the specifics of who said what to whom…. As a legal matter, I'm obliged to protect the deliberative process."

The Rev. Lawrence Harris of Pittsgrove, N.J., sees the issue from the vantage point of his wheelchair. Had his claim been preempted after a devastating accident with his family in North Carolina, he might not be preaching on Sundays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. This is why the Dems need to block BushCo's judicial
appointments instead of playing nicey-nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R. This needs to be added to the list of outrages that are reported
to voters to show the TRUE priorities of the Bushies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. to limit corp. liability through rule-making process and without Congress


In a letter to President Bush on Thursday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said, "It appears that there may have been an administration-wide directive for agencies … to limit corporate liability through the rule-making process and without the consent of Congress."

Administration officials said the initiatives had not been centrally coordinated.

"Under the constitution, federal laws take priority over inconsistent state laws," said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. "Decisions about … whether particular rules should preempt state laws are made agency by agency and rule by rule."

Preemption initiatives by regulatory agencies have drawn less public attention than controversial legislative moves supported by the White House. With administration support, Congress has restricted class-action suits and banned certain claims against gun makers and vaccine producers.

By embedding similar protections for businesses in regulatory changes, the administration has advanced Bush's repeated pledge to rein in what he calls junk lawsuits........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. one Dem calling it undermining ---consumer rights."







.....By embedding similar protections for businesses in regulatory changes, the administration has advanced Bush's repeated pledge to rein in what he calls junk lawsuits.

On Thursday, for example, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopted a rule to curb mattress fires, it recommended for the first time that courts bar suits against manufacturers that comply with the new standard.

Schakowsky called the move "part of an unfortunate and troublesome pattern … to undermine consumer rights."

In addition to trying to bar suits over vehicle roof failures, the highway safety agency in recent months has sought broad legal protection for manufacturers in two other rules on the grounds that lawsuits could undermine its safety goals. One rule related to rear seat belts and the other to visibility requirements for trucks.

No similar exemption clauses have been attached to any other highway safety agency rule changes for 35 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-19-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. How do we get rid of a junk President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC